From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-29 08:20:39
On 2/25/04 1:02 AM, "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The intention was to remove the min/max hack from win32.hpp, and then
> fix all the places where the min/max macros would otherwise wreak havoc.
> That isn't limitted to qualified called to std::min and std::max. It
> also includes unqualified calls to min/max, and also calls to
> numeric_limits<foo>::max, and the declarations and invocations of all
> min/max member functions.
This "solution" looks extremely invasive, given all the different places
that could need changing. Maybe it's not worth it, considering the hit that
anyone not using the Windows headers (automatically including anyone not
using Windows nor an IBM-styled PC) takes. What was wrong with limiting the
workaround to "win32.hpp"?
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk